Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2013-03-12T11:03:11Z
dc.date.available2013-03-12T11:03:11Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.submitted2010-11-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationMatwin, Dagny. Causation in Hull Insurance. Masteroppgave, University of Oslo, 2010en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/22792
dc.description.abstractThe objective of the thesis is to compare the rules on causation and incidence of loss from a hull insurance perspective in the Nordic countries. As a consequence of there being underlying differences in how these questions are resolved, it therefore results in an interesting comparison. In addition, in light of the proposal of a common Marine Insurance Plan for the entire Nordic market a comparison is relevant for the same reasons. In the Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan the scope of the insurers liability when covered and uncovered perils have contributed to a loss is based on an apportionment principle, cf. § NMIP 2-13. This solution is unique in relation to the corresponding rules in the Nordic Countries, which operate with the dominant cause principle. However, the NMIP was used as a prototype to the revision of the Finnish Marine Hull Conditions (FHC) in the year of 2001. As a result, today the FHC has a corresponding rule of apportionment. Nevertheless, an exception is made to the apportionment principle when the loss is attributed to a combination of marine and war perils. In this case the starting point is the dominant cause principle as well. Another question related to causation arises in cases where a loss is caused by a peril that can be traced back to a previous insurance period. According to the NMIP § 2-11 first subparagraph the liability of the insurer is triggered when the interest insured is struck by an insured peril during the insurance period. The starting point is thus a peril has struck principle which is a different point of departure to the damage principle which the remaining Nordic countries operate with. The approach to the question of causation and incidences of loss differ within the Nordic countries. These differences may provide implications both in changing between the insurance conditions and with an implementation of a common Nordic Marine Insurance Plan. The question to be answered is what the differences really are, their impact and which solution would be best suited for the whole common Nordic marine insurance market. Although an all comprehensive comparison between the Nordic rules of marine insurance would be both interesting and relevant at time, the aim of this work will be limited to compare and analyse the selected sections from a hull insurance perspective. Focus is foremost put on a comparison between the relevant Swedish and Norwegian rules.eng
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.titleCausation in Hull Insurance : A Nordic perspectiveen_US
dc.typeMaster thesisen_US
dc.date.updated2011-03-14en_US
dc.creator.authorMatwin, Dagnyen_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::349en_US
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft.au=Matwin, Dagny&rft.title=Causation in Hull Insurance&rft.inst=University of Oslo&rft.date=2010&rft.degree=Masteroppgaveen_US
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-27198en_US
dc.type.documentMasteroppgaveen_US
dc.identifier.duo107014en_US
dc.contributor.supervisorTrine-Lise Wilhelmsenen_US
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/22792/1/Causationxinxhullxinsurance.pdf


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata